Lawtel Case Law report

I write with regard to Lawtel's report of the above case which appeared in The Lawyer of 17 February.

The last sentence of the report is plainly wrong. the case did not hold, as is stated under (9), that Panatown's claim failed because it did not own the building, but (as is clear from the rest of the report) that Panatown's claim did not fail merely because it did not own the building.

Louis Flannery

SJ Berwin & Co